Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3 “the aperiodic access link beam” should be “an aperiodic access link beam.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 10, which depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, recite “an aperiodic access link beam.” However, claims 1 and 9 already recite aperiodic access link beam. Therefore, it is unclear which aperiodic access link beam are being recited in claims 2 and 10. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the aperiodic access link beam of claims 2 and 10 to be the same aperiodic access link beam recited in claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE (“Discussion on side control information and NCR behavior,” R1-2300702, published February 17, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, ZTE teaches “[a] method performed by a network-controlled repeater (NCR) relaying a signal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: identifying at least one reference slot” (see p. 10, lines 20-21; for aperiodic beam indication receiving the DCI carrying AP indication at slot n (reference slot); beam index is associated with SCS in the same DCI since an NCR needs to forward signals with different reference SCSs dynamically; thus, NCR identifying at least one reference slot to which the aperiodic access link beam is applied for each); and
ZTE further teaches “applying the aperiodic access link beam based on the at least one reference slot and a slot offset” (see p. 10, lines 20-23; AP indication at slot n, the additional scheduling offset, e.g., X slot will be considered; the indicated beam will be applied at the corresponding time resource, where the starting position is defined as the slot offset with the reference time instant at N+X (slot offset); thus, NCR applying the aperiodic access link beam based on the at least one reference slot and a slot offset).
While ZTE does not explicitly state “the aperiodic access link beam is applied for each different subcarrier spacing (SCS)” as recited in claim 1, ZTE, however does disclose “[t]o support dynamic forwarding of signals with different SCS, the SCS should be included in DCI” (emphasis added) (see p. 5, line 12). ZTE further discloses “[f]or each aperiodic beam indication for access link, one DCI is used with the information defined by Option-1[,]” which includes slot information, including slot information discussed above. The teaching of including the different SCS and the information for which aperiodic beam indication for access link in the DCI enables one of ordinary skill in the art to have the aperiodic beam indication for access link (i.e., the aperiodic access link beam) applied to the different SCS. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of ZTE to have a method performed by the NCR where “the aperiodic access link beam is applied for each different subcarrier spacing (SCS)” as recited in claim 1. The suggestion to do so would have been to support dynamic forwarding of signals with different SCS (see p. 5, line 12 of ZTE).
Regarding claim 2, ZTE teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “receiving, from a base station, control information including indication information on an aperiodic access link beam to be applied in the NCR for relaying the signal” (see 10, lines 20-23; for aperiodic beam indication receiving the DCI (i.e., control information) carrying AP indication; the indicated beam will be applied at the corresponding time resource; thus, control information is received including indication information on an aperiodic access link beam to be applied in the NCR for relaying the signal).
Regarding claim 3, ZTE teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the indication information includes at least one beam information and at least one time information corresponding to the at least one beam information, wherein the at least one beam information indicates at least one beam index of at least one access link beam scheduled to the NCR, and wherein each time information of the at least one time information indicates a time resource scheduled to a corresponding access link beam index” (see section 2.1.2, p. 4; for each aperiodic beam indication for access link, one DCI is used with the information defined by Option-1 (i.e., indication information includes at least one beam information corresponding to the at least one beam information); L_max fields are used to indicate the beam information and each field refers to one beam index (i.e., at least one beam information indicates at least one beam index of at least one access link beam scheduled to the NCR); T_max fields to indicate the time resource (i.e., wherein each time information of the at least one time information indicates a time resource scheduled to a corresponding access link beam index)).
Regarding claim 4, ZTE teaches the method of claim 3, and further teaches “receiving, from a base station, list information about a plurality of time resources including the time resource through higher layer signaling, wherein each of the plurality of time resources include at least one of the slot offset, a symbol offset, a symbol duration, or SCS information” (see p. 4, lines 6-7; if T_max=L_max, a simple 1-to-1 mapping can be used to associate the beam with the time resource; all possible time resources (i.e., list information about a plurality of time resources) are configured to the NCR using RRC signaling (i.e., including the time resource through higher layer signaling) by the gNB (receiving from a base station) firstly. Each time resource is a defined by {SlotOffset, SymbolOffset, NumberSymbol} (i.e., plurality of time resources include at least one of the slot offset, a symbol offset, a symbol duration, or SCS information)).
Regarding claim 5, ZTE teaches the method of claim 3, and further teaches “wherein the slot offset indicates an offset from a reference slot (n+k) obtained by adding a value k based on the capability information of the NCR to the slot n on which the indication information has received, to a slot to which the aperiodic access link beam is applied, and wherein the NCR identifies a symbol duration where the aperiodic access link beam is applied among symbols in a slot identified by the slot offset, based on the symbol offset and a symbol unit interval” (see p. 9, lines 23-24, and p. 10, lines 20-23 and 27-28, and FIG. 1; AP indication at slot n (i.e., slot n on which the indication information has received), the additional scheduling offset, e.g., X slot will be considered; the indicated beam will be applied at the corresponding time resource, where the starting position is defined as the slot offset with the reference time instant at N+X (slot offset) (i.e., the slot offset indicates an offset from a reference slot (n+k)); NCR capability and NCR could report the capability via RRC signaling; thus, capability information of the NCR to the slot n on which the indication information has received; thus, NCR identifies a symbol duration where the aperiodic access link beam is applied among symbols in a slot identified by the slot offset, based on the symbol offset and a symbol unit interval).
Regarding claims 9-13, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims of 1-5 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directe4d to the rejection of claims 1-5. Claims 9-13 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of Hwang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0126744).
Regarding claim 6, ZTE teaches the method of claim 1, and also teaches “reference slot different SCS” and “reference slot of SCS configured to a downlink control channel” (see p. 10, lines 21-23, and p. 11, line 14; DCI carrying AP indication at slot n (reference slot); to support dynamic forwarding of signals with different SCS, the SCS should be included in DCI (i.e., DCI is received via a downlink control channel)). ZTE does not explicitly disclose one reference slot determined as one of a first slot and a last slot overlapping with a reference slot of SCS. However, Hwang teaches “determined as one of a first slot and a last slot overlapping with a reference slot of SCS” (see ¶¶ [0111], [0361], and [0362]; a subframe may be divided into one or more slots, and the number of slots in an SF may be determined according to a subcarrier spacing (SCS); receive the information indicating the number of slots by higher layer signaling; the boundary of a DL slot and/or a UL slot and/or an SL slot may not be aligned; thus, a first slot and a last slot can overlap). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Hwang to have overlapping slots of SCS. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance communication in a network.
Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of Hwang and further in view of Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0039964).
Regarding claim 7, ZTE teaches the method of claim 1, and the combination of ZTE and Hwang teaches “wherein the at least one reference slot for each different SCS is set to one of a first slot and a last slot overlapping with a reference slot” of claim 7 (see ¶¶ [0111], [0361], and [0362] of Hwang). The combination does not explicitly disclose “of a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information” of claim 7. However, Wang teaches “a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information” (see ¶ [0005]; the first time duration is determined based on a smallest subcarrier spacing (SCS) of an SCS of a downlink (DL) with which a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) (i.e., a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of ZTE in view of Hwang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to use a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance control information for communication between network and device (see ¶ [0004] of Wang).
Regarding claim 8, ZTE teaches the method of claim 1, and the combination of ZTE and Hwang teaches “wherein the at least one reference slot for each different SCS is set to one of the first slot and the last slot overlapping with a reference slot . . . wherein the at least one reference slot for each different SCS is set to one of the first slot and the last slot overlapping with a reference slot” of claim 8 (see ¶¶ [0111], [0361], and [0362] of Hwang). However, Wang teaches “based on the smallest SCS included in the list information, or . . . based on a smallest SCS among SCSs included in the list information and a SCS of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying the downlink control information” (see ¶ [0005]; the first time duration is determined based on a smallest subcarrier spacing (SCS) of an SCS of a downlink (DL) with which a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) (i.e., a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of ZTE in view of Hwang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to use a smallest SCS among time resources indicated by the indication information. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance control information for communication between network and device (see ¶ [0004] of Wang).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims of 7 and 8 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directe4d to the rejection of claims 7 and 8. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 7 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2472